Slashdot Mirror
EFF Joins Fight Against Apple Lawsuit
sutterpants writes "The BBC is carrying a story on the legal battle between Apple and free press advocates. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has joined in the fight to protect journalists from revealing their sources. Which carries more weight: the right of Apple to protect their trade secrets or the rights of journalists to protect their sources?"
Funny how almost no story or commentary about this ever mentions that current, in-force US laws may have been broken in the publication of this information:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A793 7-2005Jan13_2.html
But while lawsuits against online publications are rare, he said, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by about 45 states, including California, prevents third parties from exposing information knowingly obtained from sources bound by confidentiality agreements.
"Just because you don't have a relationship with the company doesn't necessarily immunize you, if you publish what you reasonably should have known was a trade secret," [Andrew] Beckerman-Rodau[, who runs the intellectual property program at Boston's Suffolk University Law School] said. "The First Amendment has been asserted more and more against intellectual property rights, but it's not faring well. Most courts haven't accepted it."
Apple doesn't really care about these web sites. They care about finding out who within the company (or contractor, etc.) is continually leaking this extremely accurate information to web sites (such as Think Secret). And no, it's not information that's "known" elsewhere. Some of these sites have got very reliable moles, and Apple wants to know who they are. Hint: yes, these are people who definitely have binding confidentiality agreements with Apple.
Regardless of whether or not Apple "should" or "shouldn't" be doing this, whether it's good PR or not, etc., if you can't see that it's wrong, legally and ethically, for these people to be leaking this information, then, well, we have nothing further to discuss. Is it journalism and free speech when you violate laws to obtain information? Ignorance of the law is no excuse...
And remember, whether or not you fundamentally *agree* with the law is irrelevant. It's either illegal, or not. (Yes, yes, sure, there's gray areas, but that's not the point I'm making. And sure, maybe these sites "fighting it" in this way is one mechanism to examine the validity of these laws, and further, the role of an online journalist and his information gathering mechanisms, what can be construed as soliciting known confidential information, what constitutes a violation of these laws in this context, etc.)
If Apple's goal is to find out who leaked this information - indeed, if it considers that information critical to its business - and there is a legal mechanism for perhaps recovering that information, is it not within its rights to file suit seeking that information, especially when criminal and/or civil laws pertinent to that very information may have been violated? You might THINK they should hire a private detective. You might THINK any laws prohibiting these sites from revealing such information are incorrect, immoral, or unjust. But those are subjects not relevant to the case at hand, unless, of course, you believe the EFF challenge is a fundamental challenge of these laws.
I'm not talking philosophy here, or whether or not government officials can/should leak to the press. This is not about the Seymour Hershes of the world and the Pentagon Papers. I'm talking about the legality of this particular case, which involves a corporate entity, not issues of "throwing reporters in jail" to "reveal sources". Note that under some conditions, journalists HAVE, in fact, violated the law, and have, properly, been thrown in jail. The concept of not revealing confidential sources isn't some high and mighty ethical concept; in fact, it's a rather selfish one: at some level, it ensures them more sources in the future. It makes them more effective as a journalist. Whether they've got lofty ideals or what have you is again irrelevant. The point is, we either enforce rule of law as set by society in this country, or we don't. And yes, we can work to change law(s), protest against them, a
...and we still don't know who Deep Throat was, I have to admit surprise that modern corporations can muscle the media better than the federal government, particularly the Nixon administration.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Which carries more weight: the right of Apple to protect their trade secrets or the rights of journalists to protect their sources?
The rights of Apple to protect their trade secrets is not really the case here, as I understand it. The breach of trade secrets was done by, I assume, someone from inside Apple. This is the culprit that Apple should seek. But they are taking the easy route and trying to bully a small time web site in the hopes that it will discourage similar reporting in the future. Not very upstanding behaviour. What they should be doing is a security audit to find where the leaks are coming from. However, that is much more difficult and complicated. Its easier to try and put the fear of litigation into everyone. *sigh*
Which carries more weight: the right of Apple to protect their trade secrets or the rights of journalists to protect their sources?
That this is even a question is cause for concern. Originally, from what I gather from history, journalists held a very important role in our society. Arguably more important than politicians: They were the watch dogs. They were the ones keeping our elected representatives honest. They had to have free reign, unrestricted by those that held power, to do their jobs effectively.
Now of course, journalists are simply mouthpieces for which ever party they subscribe to. Maybe it's always been that way, who knows, I don't really glean that much off the history I've read.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
It also says nothing about the journalists not having to testify against sources.
The only person you have a right not to incriminate, constitutionally, is yourself. Of course, other exceptions (physician, priest, attorney) have become protected, as have in many cases journalists, but while they may have a fundamental right to publish the information, they don't have the right not to testify about a crime which was committed just because they have the right to publish.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
I do not believe in petty lawsuits over cigarettes that kill or McDonald's coffee that was too hot when spilt into the lap while driving. What I do believe in is accountability for one's action and that is where the issue truly lies.
Journalists live and die by the "tips" they get.
The question is the "harm" they can cause by releasing the information.
If a journalist gets a tip that the police are looking for a suspect, releases said tip, and the suspect evades capture by getting the heads up, then the Journalist has, wittingly or not, obstructed justice.
In this instance, wittingly or not, the journalist has revealed trade secrets.
Another example? How about embedded reporters disclosing their whereabouts while in a military operation overseas (hypotethically, of course this would never happen). They endanger the lives of service men and women as well as the operation, but don't even need a source - they (or their GPS) are the source.
Being a "journalist" doesn't give one free reign to break laws.
My vote is that those who disclose confidential (NDA protected) information to a Journalist are breaking the law (civil law vs. criminal law - can be fined but not incarcerated) and the Journalist can choose to use that information if they are willing to also stand before a civil court for their actions.
If they did not know the information was priviledged, then they can just turn over the source, and have that source answer for their actions.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Pajamahadeen "working" for some obscure web site?
White House plant in the Press Corps?
Unemployed Columbia J-School graduate?
MSNBC Web Jockey given too much control over content?
Me, You, here, "blogging" our opinions on an extremely popular web site?
Senile "anchor" person who looked sexy twenty years ago and hasn't written a news story in his/her life?
A perky Fox News Info-Babe?
An ex-SNL comedy writer hosting a radio show on an avowedly anti-right wing network?
The producer/writer for the ex-comedy writer's show?
Jon Stewart? Jon Stewart's producer?
Jayson Blair?
The guys who covered up for Jayson Blair?
Rush Limbaugh (currently billing himself as "America's Anchorman")?
The diligent, dutiful Editor-in-Chief of the local High School Newspaper?
Some guy from Al-Jazeera whose cousin is in Gitmo?
Armed Forces Radio?
It's 2005. "Journalism" means everything and everything. Define "journalist" for me and I'll tell ya whether his sources should be protected, laughed at, or locked up...
Wait, wait, wait. The first amendment was included in the Constitution so that never would it be the case (as in England at the time), that journalists or publications would have their content censored or banned by the government for speaking ill of it, or its policy.
None of that is in question. Extend that to Apple. Apple is NOT suing so that the website gets shut down or their content restricted. Incorrect.
What IS happening, is Apple would like to know who the source of the information is, so that they can appropriately charge the person with breach of contract (which they ARE).
This has NOTHING AT ALL to do with the First Amendment, this has to do with legislation relating to journalists' sources. I'll admit freely that I don't know anything about legal precedent, BUT I can tell you that the case has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment.
--- What
Sometimes the Apple users need to remember that Apple is just a corporation. We tend to think of Apple as being "different", so folks tend to be appalled when Apple ACTS like a corporation. Face it, they are out to make a buck like everyone else.
Crushing my karma one post at a time.
Would some kind lawyerly type please define what a "trade secret" is? To me, this seems kind of odd in that it was simply some marketing info on a new product that someone was tipped off on, not an internal process to produce something that Apple didn't want seeing the light of day.
What's the deal? I've seen "secret" photos and whatnot of covered cars on tracks before they come out.. seems that in other cases the manufacturer just keeps a tighter lid on it.
You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
I have no definitive answer as to what the Bill of Rights meant by the term "press," but I'm happy to take an educated guess.
At the time of the United States's founding, the journalistic landscape wasn't what we've had for most of the 19th and all of the 20th century: namely, media dominated by major newspapers. There were many, many individual owners of printing presses.
These printers (and Benjamin Franklin was one) handled the various printing needs of their towns. They also usually printed newsletters relating local events, political issues, weather forecasts, farming tips, and so forth. In addition to these newsletters, they printed political pamphlets, including Common Sense and the Federalist Papers.
The situation then was much closer to the blogs, e-mail newsletters, and Web forums we have today.
I think, from a constitutional standpoint, you could definitely argue that blogs -- and other Internet goodness -- are in no way second-class journalistic entitites, but instead have the same rights afforded to the New York Times, et. al. They are the modern versions of the Colonial and Revolutionary press.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
Neither the BBC piece nor any of the comments I've seen indicate why the EFF is getting involved in what seems like a pretty simple trade secret case. So I went to the EFF and found out the real reason:
After initially threatening to subpoena reporters directly, Apple sent subpoenas to Nfox.com, the email provider for PowerPage publisher Jason O'Grady. By forcing Nfox to hand over O'Grady's email, Apple hopes to find out who told the journalist about an upcoming product code-named "Asteroid."
"Rather than confronting the issue of reporter's privilege head-on, Apple is going to this journalist's ISP for his emails," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl.
In its request for the protective order, EFF points out that reporter's privileges protect the anonymity of sources regardless of whether third parties hold a journalist's records.
Aha! Now that is something a bit different, and I'm glad the EFF isn't (as the story comment implies) saying that trade secrets shouldn't be protected, because that would stupid. Apple isn't wrong for protecting it's trade secrets, but I would agree that this "innovative" approach isn't fair.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.